The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-11-02


i05fs sfSs "a
Ssyd @ GS rsnes psss
Let me explain prsGISey what =, these b bts
iicense,a so called. BY fixing the minimum
license fee for all flrst-class licenses ~ 81 900,
sRsssS ns f1 IN osSr Words sSs ss
90 sS as Il saw At The BILL by lts tsFns was
and Brooklyn, and, the rest OF the State was
expempted from its proyisions. The Logls-
sfS o sss f f T S aso anG%
provisions which The learned Attorney; Gem
Ta and 81 20
stiiutional. The bill WAS Objectionable be.
cause Il provided for an Excise law that was
not uniform Throughout the state. II high
license" or such license as 1t required was
good good Tor the inferior cities and towns. There
be fe
BILE. and think the Executive only performed
his plain duty when he vetoed II. II was ovi-
tanned the veto, and even the Legislature itself
did not attempt to pass the bill over the veto
h ss Gassd Would say
The Vedder" biiii was, IT, possible. even
chievous in It's unfair determinations, It pur-
ported to DO a revenue measure. and not one
Tor reform or to promote nrosIae Is
support the State Government. and It did not
assume an intention Or desire to I restrict Or
Uniform throughout the the state. imposing
tax % 500 sSa SsS ss q aaYSs exx 9ot
Of the State the tax varied from $500. to sSo
sa knd 81 ps
into the State Treasury rather than into the
Treasury q the Localities where tho licenses
able because there was no pretepee Of equality
~ the imposition OF the tax. New York and
Brooklyn have some rights left which even
teiIisent audience like this that taxes should
se nd b Sas to 4s
United States LIQUOR license tux Il the same
gan. Texas, and Illinois the State liquor tax
Is uniform in all parts OF those States yet this
bill was puIrposely Or ignorantly framed differ
II disapproved. and then ,attemp ting to raise a
clamor about it. But its Injustice is more APP
the license taxes should not be apped to tho
reduction of local taxation. l submit to you
that no good reason can be urged why ono 10;
ity or with. the State at large any
thu the sI nasS 81 sd aDGi sss
Whatever taxes the liquor traffic ought
reasonable to bear, land am not, now arguing
IN shape o oh.
wise. should go INTO the local rather than the
stats Treasury. They SHOULD be used for
correct principle Of right OF. policy should the
city of BROOKLYN or the county Of Kings divide
Of IT, OF any
other county in the State, and particularly with
s s t This is an important and serious c
in the rural districts the large sums which
lied from the " vedder" bill had It not been dis
approved by the Governor have ave you reflected
erly entitled to those moneys? In Ohio all the
proceeds Gifts tax are Gaid into the county
sota all such taxes are paid into the city, town.
and village treasures. and even under the re-
Gently. enacted law OF Pennsylvania. SO often
required that four-fifths Of the revenue derived
from liquor license taxes shall be paid into tho
modsS ths
statutes OF other States. and was glaringly un-
lust to particular localities. In short. 1t pro-
benefit OF one-third. 1t was partial, crude, and
in its PROVISIONS. and 1t well de-
bs fate s Tssh T. The nna
scented by these bills. They failed to explicitly
eRGse hs Paig hs o a aS Re their si %
the people in the country districts that they
will again press both these measures. but. on
character OF their platform upon these aues-
young Mr.. Crosby on the floor Of tbs Cenven-
and the committee with having made a
ately termed Il, That resolution deals In gilt
tering generalities, and does not touch the
conprehsnsive and efficient Legislation for
cites' That Is as definite and Satisfactory sa as
Kind Of a tariff he advocated when he stated
Local option is mere catch phrase as 1t
is here used. because all localities. virtually
hnSsr !, eI nsT rhs ys sf in she ,dss S
Grossly" nor Veddsr" bills were local OPTION lon
have heretofore favored comprehensive and
efficient legislation favoring local option"
why have they not enacted 1t in the past2
What assurance have the honest people OF the
have previously declared in other years in Ia
meant nothing and resulted in nothing. Their
present platform further recommends re-
striction by. taxation in such localities, as do
traffic" This is absolutely meaningless. as
well as cunninGly contrived subterfuge. OF
course where there Is no liquor traffic there
can be no taxation upon it, and IL was wholly
unnecessary to frame any such sentence ex-
cept to better conceal their real meaning.
But what are we to understand by the gen.
erul and indefinite phrase, Restriction by
taxation?" Is 1t to be local or State taxation2
Where are the taxes to be paid. and how APP
plied2 Are counties which have no licenses
to share in the license taxes of other
Are the taxes to be uniform
throughout the State? Are they to be greater
In Democratic than In Republican localities2
This resolution is silent a. the grave on these
points. 1t evades all the important issues pre-
sented in the "Vedder" blu. The people want
to know Just what is intended. and are not
satisfied with this double-faced" resolution.
Ex-Mayor Low admitted in his first address
In this campaign that these bills were very de-
fective. and that his party was not committed
to their details, but. with his usual sweet sim
ernor for vetoine them. TO show that the plat
form. as well as the party itself. Is double
faced" upon this question. permit me to state
the fact that these bills were made a party
question last winter, and adopted in caucus as =.
q Republican party measure. Notwit hstandlng
this fact there were a few Repu blican Senators
and Assemblymen who voted against them,
and yet every one Of them have been renomi-
mated and arc receiving their party support.
Yet senator Evarts insists that the grand old
Republican party Is a party of principle"
Tho people ~ the State appreciate at its true